- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
- Messages
- 14,457
- Points
- 113
As someone who has spent decades studying the behaviour of quantum fields in curved spacetime, I have developed a professional instinct for identifying when a system is being pushed beyond its natural constraints. That instinct serves me not only in physics but also when examining questions of national infrastructure and risk.
So when I read the recent remarks by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, suggesting that Singapore is well placed for nuclear energy and could be the most perfect example of a country that needs it, I felt a duty to respond.
I do not oppose nuclear power in principle. It is a field of immense scientific and engineering achievement. But whether a system is workable does not depend on whether it is advanced. It depends on whether it fits. In Singapore’s case, nuclear power does not fit.
Let me explain why.
First, the size of Singapore makes emergency planning impossible
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires two Emergency Planning Zones around any nuclear facility. The first is a 16 kilometre plume exposure zone for evacuation and health response. The second is an 80 kilometre ingestion pathway zone to safeguard water and food systems.
Singapore is just over 50 kilometres wide. That means there is no location on this island that lies outside the 80 kilometre zone. In the event of a radiological incident, the entire country would be affected. There is no safe perimeter. There is no unaffected region. That alone should disqualify us from considering nuclear energy.
Second, there is no feasible way to store nuclear waste
Spent nuclear fuel remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Safe storage requires geological isolation, stable landforms, and space far from dense human populations. Singapore has none of these. We do not have the land or the geology for a long-term repository. Any facility would have to be located close to residential, commercial, or water catchment areas. That is a level of exposure no society should accept.
Third, evacuation logistics do not work here
The global standard for nuclear safety assumes that, in the event of a crisis, large populations can be moved quickly to zones outside the immediate danger. Singapore has no such zones. Our density and limited land area make rapid evacuation unworkable. We cannot move hundreds of thousands of people to safety because there is no physical space in which to shelter them.
Fourth, we lack the depth of local expertise required
Singapore has taken positive steps in building capacity in nuclear science and radiation safety. I welcome this as a physicist who has worked across multiple academic institutions and research frameworks. But nuclear energy demands more than scientific literacy. It requires an ecosystem of engineers, reactor operators, independent regulators, emergency managers, and long-term planners. These roles must be filled locally, with deep continuity and experience. We are not at that point yet.
Fifth, nuclear deployment depends on public trust and democratic engagement
This is not a technical matter. It is a societal one. The public must be meaningfully involved in discussions about nuclear energy. They must be given access to independent assessments, real choices, and long-term accountability mechanisms. In many newcomer countries, including Singapore, the experience of engaging the public on such high-stakes issues remains limited. Without that foundation, the legitimacy of any nuclear programme is weakened.
Finally, Singapore cannot externalise its risk
Larger countries may locate reactors in remote areas or collaborate with neighbours for storage or backup power. Singapore has no rural provinces. We have no partners who would accept our radioactive waste. Everything would need to be managed inside our national borders. That is an extraordinary burden for a country this small.
These are not abstract arguments. They are based on standards set by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the International Atomic Energy Agency itself, and institutions like the Union of Concerned Scientists. They are also supported by real-world constraints that no amount of optimism can override.
I respect the intentions of the IAEA and appreciate Director General Grossi’s confidence in Singapore’s capabilities. But the role of science is not only to imagine what is possible. It is to identify what is coherent. And in my assessment, nuclear energy is not coherent with Singapore’s geography, population density, and physical boundaries.
We should instead focus on alternatives that match our constraints. These include regional power grids, solar expansion, energy storage, and research into low-risk generation systems. These may not be dramatic, but they are responsible.
In physics, a theory must respect its boundary conditions. In national planning, the same principle applies. Nuclear power exceeds the boundary conditions of Singapore. That is not a political opinion. That is a statement of structural reality.
Let us be ambitious, but let us also be wise. Not everything that works in one country can or should be replicated in another. We must respect the shape of our island, the limits of our systems, and the weight of the risks we carry.
So when I read the recent remarks by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, suggesting that Singapore is well placed for nuclear energy and could be the most perfect example of a country that needs it, I felt a duty to respond.
I do not oppose nuclear power in principle. It is a field of immense scientific and engineering achievement. But whether a system is workable does not depend on whether it is advanced. It depends on whether it fits. In Singapore’s case, nuclear power does not fit.
Let me explain why.
First, the size of Singapore makes emergency planning impossible
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires two Emergency Planning Zones around any nuclear facility. The first is a 16 kilometre plume exposure zone for evacuation and health response. The second is an 80 kilometre ingestion pathway zone to safeguard water and food systems.
Singapore is just over 50 kilometres wide. That means there is no location on this island that lies outside the 80 kilometre zone. In the event of a radiological incident, the entire country would be affected. There is no safe perimeter. There is no unaffected region. That alone should disqualify us from considering nuclear energy.
Second, there is no feasible way to store nuclear waste
Spent nuclear fuel remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Safe storage requires geological isolation, stable landforms, and space far from dense human populations. Singapore has none of these. We do not have the land or the geology for a long-term repository. Any facility would have to be located close to residential, commercial, or water catchment areas. That is a level of exposure no society should accept.
Third, evacuation logistics do not work here
The global standard for nuclear safety assumes that, in the event of a crisis, large populations can be moved quickly to zones outside the immediate danger. Singapore has no such zones. Our density and limited land area make rapid evacuation unworkable. We cannot move hundreds of thousands of people to safety because there is no physical space in which to shelter them.
Fourth, we lack the depth of local expertise required
Singapore has taken positive steps in building capacity in nuclear science and radiation safety. I welcome this as a physicist who has worked across multiple academic institutions and research frameworks. But nuclear energy demands more than scientific literacy. It requires an ecosystem of engineers, reactor operators, independent regulators, emergency managers, and long-term planners. These roles must be filled locally, with deep continuity and experience. We are not at that point yet.
Fifth, nuclear deployment depends on public trust and democratic engagement
This is not a technical matter. It is a societal one. The public must be meaningfully involved in discussions about nuclear energy. They must be given access to independent assessments, real choices, and long-term accountability mechanisms. In many newcomer countries, including Singapore, the experience of engaging the public on such high-stakes issues remains limited. Without that foundation, the legitimacy of any nuclear programme is weakened.
Finally, Singapore cannot externalise its risk
Larger countries may locate reactors in remote areas or collaborate with neighbours for storage or backup power. Singapore has no rural provinces. We have no partners who would accept our radioactive waste. Everything would need to be managed inside our national borders. That is an extraordinary burden for a country this small.
These are not abstract arguments. They are based on standards set by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the International Atomic Energy Agency itself, and institutions like the Union of Concerned Scientists. They are also supported by real-world constraints that no amount of optimism can override.
I respect the intentions of the IAEA and appreciate Director General Grossi’s confidence in Singapore’s capabilities. But the role of science is not only to imagine what is possible. It is to identify what is coherent. And in my assessment, nuclear energy is not coherent with Singapore’s geography, population density, and physical boundaries.
We should instead focus on alternatives that match our constraints. These include regional power grids, solar expansion, energy storage, and research into low-risk generation systems. These may not be dramatic, but they are responsible.
In physics, a theory must respect its boundary conditions. In national planning, the same principle applies. Nuclear power exceeds the boundary conditions of Singapore. That is not a political opinion. That is a statement of structural reality.
Let us be ambitious, but let us also be wise. Not everything that works in one country can or should be replicated in another. We must respect the shape of our island, the limits of our systems, and the weight of the risks we carry.
